I think m Mr. Assistant Secretary, we need to clear the deis, keep people from lingering at the deis. I'm calling to order this meeting. This is the regular monthly meeting of the committee of the whole of the council of the District of Columbia. I'm Phil Mendelson, chair of the council and chair of the committee of the whole. Today is Tuesday, November 18th, 2025. The time is 11:24 in the morning. Sorry, we're starting a little bit late. This meeting is being broadcast on Council Cable Channel 13 and also on the council's website, www.dcounsil.gov. Uh, let's see. We always begin our committee the whole meetings by determining whether we have a quorum. Mr. Stum, would you call the role? >> Chairman, >> present. >> Council member Allen, >> here. >> Council member Bonds. Council member Bonds, Council Member Felder, Council Member Felder, Council Member Freeman, >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. >> Council member Lewis George. Council member Lewis George. Council member McDuffy >> here. Council member Nado. Council member Nadau. Council member Parker here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. Council member Robert White >> present. >> Council member Trayon White. Council member Trayon White. Mr. Chairman, you have quorum. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, let's see. We have the secretary's report of committee filings. I'm going to recognize Mr. McDuffy, the chair prom. >> Thank you, chairman. Uh, I move to wave the reading of the secretary's report. >> It's been a motion to wave the reading. Is there discussion? on the motion to wave the reading. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Uh hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. We have the secretary's log of introductions and referrals. I'll again recognize the chair prom, Mr. McDuffy. >> And I will move to wave the reading of the secretary's log of introductions and referrals. >> It's been a motion to wave the reading of the log. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Are there any opposed? Uh hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Uh the agenda lists two measures for markup in the committee the whole. The first is PR26-310 entitled transfer of jurisdiction of portions of US reservation 343 C and 343D. SO23-03016 approval resolution of 2025. This resolution would approve the transfer of a jurisdiction of approximately 753,000 square ft of land from the United States General Services Administration and the United States Park Service transferred to the District of Columbia. This transfer of jurisdiction is necessary for the completion of the improvements involved in the construction, maintenance, and operation of federal reservations. The 11th Street Bridge Park is a highly anticipated elevated public park that will repurpose the former downstream span of the 11th Street Bridge into a civic and cultural destination connecting Capitol Hill Navyyard on the west with Anacostia Fairlong on the east. Conceived through extensive community visioning beginning in 2011, the Bridge Park is intended to serve as a new regional recreational space, a cultural and arts venue, a pedestrian and bicycle link between the Anacostia and Navyyard riverfronts, and a catalyst for equitable community development east of the Anacostia River. The design includes performance spaces, environmental education zones, play areas, public gathering lawns, extensive plantings, and overlooks offering views of the river and surrounding landscape. The US Army Corps of Engineers, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts have all reviewed aspects of the project. Although the 11th Street Bridge infrastructure itself is under DOT's control, federal reservations along the Anacostia waterfront have historically required case-bycase transfers to the district for infrastructure improvements. The district cannot construct permanent facilities on federal reservations without a transfer of jurisdiction that is approved by the council and accepted by the federal agency. This resolution accomplishes that requirement. PR26-310 would transfer the jurisdiction of 17 parcels of land from the General Service Administration and the National Park Service, transferring them to the District of Columbia. Six of the parcels are currently under the jurisdiction of the GSA with the remainder under the jurisdiction of NPS. Ownership of the sites would remain with the federal government, but the district would maintain the storm water management and green infrastructure areas under the transfer agreement. Construction of the bridge park cannot proceed until jurisdiction over the underlying land is formally transferred to the district. BR20 successor 10 provides the legal authority necessary to move the project toward completion in the coming months. This legislation was introduced at the request of the mayor on September 17th of this year and the committee the whole held a public hearing on the legislation on October 23rd. of this year. The representative from the executive noted that DOT D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do DOT D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do DOT cannot solicit a general contractor until the transfer is complete and D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do D do DOT aims to open the solicitation this calendar year. I move the well I should add at the com committee hearing the committee received no testimony or comments while the record was open in opposition to this resolution. I move the print with leave for staff to make technical and conforming changes. Is there discussion? The vote will be on the print. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none. The eyes have it unanimously. Um I move the report with leave for staff to make technical conforming and editorial changes. Is there discussion on the report? On the report, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Are there any opposed? Hearing none, the eyes have it unanimously. Um, Madame General Counsel, is the record is the measure legal and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? Once the report and hearing record are filed >> and madame budget director, is there a fiscal impact statement since this is a resolution? >> There is a fiscal impact statement and there is no fiscal impact. >> Okay. So, the measures fiscal impact statement complies with council requirements. >> Yes, it does. >> Thank you. Um, without objection, this matter will be placed on the consent agenda for the December 2nd. Oh, no. I think it's on today's agenda. It's on today's agenda. There's no objection will be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh the second measure is bill 26-248, Philip Reed Memorial Park Designation Act of 2025. We do not yet have a fiscal impact statement. So if I were to ask the budget director if we're in compliance, she would have to say no. So I'm not moving at this meeting. I'll move it to the next committee the whole. So we will turn now to measures from other committees. We have the director of the department of human services Rachel Pierre confirmation resolution 2025 BR26-303. Council me reported out of the committee on human services chaired by council member Matt Fumman. Council member Fman, the floor is yours. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. PR260303 was introduced by yourself Mr. chairman at the request of the mayor on September 16, 2025. It was referred to the committee on human services on September 17, 2025, heard on October 9th, 2025, and marked up on October 30th, 2025 with unanimous support. The measure would confirm the nomination of acting director Rachel Pierre to serve as permanent director of the Department of Human Services or DHS at the pleasure of the mayor. After hearing at length from the nominee and many of her colleagues and collaborators, I am confident that acting director Pierre's training, experience, and commitment to our most vulnerable residents will make her the right leader for DHS. Acting director Pierre holds a master's of social work from Howard University and a master's of business administration from the University of Maryland. She began her career as a child welfare social worker and founded the Andor project to provide technical assistance to Hades ch child welfare system. She later served as director of clinical operations at Lutheran Social Services and chief operating officer at Pathways to Housing DC. Acting Director Pierre then led DHS's Family Services Administration, which operates the district's homeless services system for 5 years. In her limited time at the helm of DHS, acting director Pier Pierre has already shown that she can lead in crisis, pivot in response to change, and achieve results for vulnerable families. Last fall, just before acting director Pierre took over, DHS was leasing up 66 households matched to housing vouchers each month. That meant homeless residents were unsheltered for months longer than they had to be. After a less less than a year under acting director Pierre's leadership, DHS has nearly doubled the number of monthly leaseups to more than 120. Just this month, with the federal government shutdown, DHS had only a few days to find a way to distribute 30 million in locally funded SNAP benefits. The agency has done so with no reported delays. These are extraordinary results from strong leadership. I look forward to working with acting director Pier Pierre to achieve shared goals. We are committed to responsible and transparent budgeting, driving down the SNAP error rate, reducing homelessness, programming that sets residents up for financial independence, and creating a DHS culture of accountability and respect. The acting director's work so far shows she is up to the task. With that, chairman, I ask this measure be placed on the consent agenda for today's legislative meeting. Uh, thank you, Council Member Fman. Uh, questions from members. Council member Pinto. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much, Council Member Fman, for moving this nomination. Um, I wanted to ask about your confidence in if she has a plan moving forward for the next year. We've seen a lot of um very troubling and dangerous statements made by the federal government around our homeless population. And as we head into the winter and the spring and America's 250th next year, there's been a lot of suggestions around um additional sweeps. And so I wanted to ask if you have had any conversations that give you confidence from acting director Pierre about a new plan to uh help get folks moved inside in a safe way and a sustainable way. >> Uh thank you for that question. I think my collaboration with acting director Pierre has been excellent. I think she has been completely transparent and I do think current circumstances are going to call for a plan but also nimleness. So, none of us saw the proposed encampments clearings that were proposed in August, but immediately upon their announcement, the acting director and the deputy mayor for health and human services swung into action, went out to all the encampments, worked with folks to make sure that they knew what their options were, watched what was happening, open new shelter capacity to make sure that we wouldn't that everybody who needed a bed could get a bed. So, she has the capac she's strategic and has the capacity to act quickly on what's coming next. I think they absolutely are building a plan, but also there's the record of what's happened so far. Rapid rehousing has been a giant problem for the district for some time. She has put together a path to get out of the rapid rehousing trap that we had been in in an affordable and humane way. So I think she will bring that same spirit to what she's done on those things. When SNAP was called into question, she immediately was working with the administration trying to figure out what our options were, how we could address the need without spending dollars, district dollars unnecessarily that wouldn't be reimbursed by the federal government. uh I have not asked her what are you going to do in every contingency with this administration but the record of how she's responded and the strategic way in which she's responded gives me enormous confidence in her going forward. >> Great. Thank you so much for that and I I do think in this particular situation it's something that we should um continue to collaborate with her on and push them on um to make sure that we're ready. Thank you. >> Council member Bonds. Um thank you chairman and um thank you for this opportunity. I wanted to one ask um my colleague if the director ran into any situations which would cause us to be delayed in the SNAP payments. You may recall that the president indicated that, you know, we had to pull back if we had begun the process and I wondered if we faced any of that here in the district as well. >> We did and I think we should all give a lot of credit to Director Pierre, but also the mayor and the city administrator and all of the folks who were involved. I think that um when the challenges around SNAP came up, folks were immediately seized with how do we respond? How do we make sure that people are served promptly? But again, and this was a thing that I mentioned in the last answer, if states came forward and paid for SNAP and then the federal government reopened or said they were going to pay, they weren't going to reimburse. So you you you wanted to make sure that you didn't let people go hungry, but you also needed to be a careful steward of the district's tax dollars. And that's exactly what they did. And they followed it moment by moment, waiting to see when they needed to to move forward with local dollars. And we did. We needed to. Unfortunately, we did. and there's been no interruption in SNAP benefits for DC residents. A lot of credit goes to the director and the administration for that. >> Well, thank you for that. And then I just have one one other question and that is um the how do we what is the director Pierce's approach to moving the placement of individuals into housing given the I think more than 90 days almost a half of a year for the inspection for those who have vouchers and the rapid rehousing ing process. Does she have some solutions? >> So, and here, hats off to to uh Council Member Robert White, who hosted with me a hearing on this exact process uh where we had both Director Pierre and um uh Director Pedigrew of DCHA. the there are an enormous number of challenges in the pipeline of work to get people linked up to a voucher and then once they have a voucher to link up linked up to housing and both agencies have worked there's more work that needs to be done but both agencies have worked to reduce that time that it's taking significantly and then we'll be continuing to work on the pressure points along the way for how to make it better still >> I appreciate that that response, but I guess I'm I'm concerned as to from Director Pierce's perspective, what can she or what can the agency do differently or better in order to speed up the process? Yeah, I mean one of the things that and again kudos to Chairman Robert White. We together pushed for the agencies to collaborate in coming up with a plan and they brought in a consultant to come up with a plan for how to improve each one of the steps along the way. That report I actually have not noticed but it was supposed to come out within days. I don't know if we've seen it. A lot of progress has been made. There are things that DHS can do. Most of them have been done actually and there are still things that DCHA can do that DCA is aggressively pursuing, but this process of trying to shorten those time frames, folks have their shoulders down to try to make that happen, and I think they're making progress. Thank you, Council Member Parker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I will just say at the outset, I was impressed by the presentation of acting director Pierre and the confirmation hearing process. Uh there were a few areas that I think for DHS in general, um our areas of concern, including their youth outreach and programming. Uh, but one question I had, Council Member Fman, um, I know as it relates to benefits and the work requirements that are now, I think, on the books, um, it seemed to me as though DHS was very much figuring out how they were going to help a part of the population meet the now federal government's work requirements, namely for SNAP and other benefits. Can you and a number that I recall hearing is that even though we have what 140 or so thousand residents, I think they only had plans for a tenth of of residents to meet those work requirements. Can you just speak to what you're hearing andor what plans DHS has in the works to ensure that residents meet the federal government's requirements and maintain their benefits? >> And and this thank you for that question. a very very important question and a and I have to say a little bit of a work in progress. Um it is a very high priority for her. It's a very high priority for me. We need to get there. We need to get there because we need to connect folks to work but also if we fail to connect people to work their benefits can be at risk and we can have cuts imposed on us by the federal government. One of the challenges in the work requirements piece on the SNAP side is we now already have obligations to do reporting that we were in the process of putting together but it won't be ready. And so our snap error rate is going to which is crazy high will go up in the short term while we're trying to implement that new technology. It is fully acknowledged as a critical priority by her and by me and by others throughout the administration. And I think that's the place we're going to need to push. I do think that she is >> very well equipped to tackle this issue. I mean, if you were going to I I could give the impression that Director Pierre and I never disagree. It's not true. Um, but if you were going to build a director of DHS from the ground up, having somebody who was a social worker, who's been a case worker, who's an entrepreneur, created an organization to serve vulnerable residents, who worked in some of our major nonprofits serving our vulnerable residents, who uh who then has served inside of the agency and knows the agency for working there for 5 years and has an MBA and can focus on the numbers to get things done. She brings a skill set that is enormously valuable to tackle exactly the challenge that you're asking about. >> Uh thank you, uh Council Member Lewis George. >> Uh thank you. Um I had the opportunity to um meet with acting director Pierre and and ask her a number of questions. one that I think is important to put on the record because this is something that's coming to uh our office quite frequent frequently um and I want to understand sort of uh put on the record acting director Peter's plan but also the committee uh on human services is around um how are we going to assure that people being exited from rapid rehousing have the supports they need to not reenter the homeless service center I I think that it mostly is the the question we get most from families who are, you know, going to be exited off rapid rehousing. Um, and for those providers who are concerned about that exit and and what supports will be in place to ensure those families don't end up back in that homeless uh service cycle. So if you if you met with her, I I'm sure that she laid out to you, I mean, part of what we did through the budget process and thinking about things going forward was look at all the tools we had to avert the problem that you're talking about. And one of the things she focused on was expanding the DC Flex program so that we had another tool to be able to serve significant number of families and support them as they transition out. Many of our remaining housing vouchers will be used for exactly this purpose. It's a daytoday weektoeek thing to try to make sure we're connecting people. It is not lost on her the priority. She's drawn on all of the different tools that we have available to do it. Can I say that there's never going to be anybody for whom that happens? I can't promise that. But I can promise that the goal is that there not be anybody. And there is a strategy and a toolbox that's been built to try to avoid that. >> Yeah. And and my last question about the emergency rental system. Um, I know I guess the question is how will it actually be better to require in-person appointments instead of sort of just entering information into the portal? Do you all see this as a temporary tool or something that is probably going to be a permanent uh tool moving forward? I actually expect that it's a permanent change that what they've done and I think that the idea is one of the complaints that we heard about RAP was that um when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And so folks relied on RAP or went to RAP when there might be other appropriate tools. um DC Flex being one of them, other things being options as well. And so the idea of doing in-person interviews where you can evaluate what's the best tool for this person. Maybe they qualify for RAP, but maybe there's something that's different for them that would be better. The alternative that we had was we opened up the portal for an hour and it was just a question of whether or not somebody got lucky and got through. This is an effort to make it more systematic and more nuanced in the delivery and I don't think we're going back. We'll see how it goes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Trayon White for questions. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh thank you, Council Member Fman, for articulating your thoughts about this nominee. Um uh in director, uh [snorts] Rachel Pierre. Um, I had the opportunity of meeting with her and hearing her vision. Um, and I think that she uh is a well-rounded, gifted, smart person, but what I'm having hesitation about is how our program is effectively working for the people who need us the most. Um, in Washington DC, the working class and poor uh are having a hard time staying and living in the district. Um, and that number is growing. Um, and as we face times both federally and locally, uh, we anticipate more people coming into the system needing our help. And I guess my question, my comment and question was in reference to people getting access to these resources, right? Um, and I asked her specifically about IRA. Uh, was it going to open back up? Um, and I think that I didn't get a clear answer was was it going to open up and when and how? Because historically it opened and the system crashed. It opened and the system crashed. It open we got Octo budget and people needing us and calling us waiting for it to open only to realize that it's closed again. >> Remember, do you have a question? >> Yes, I do. I got a minute and 34 seconds. >> All right. This is for questions only. >> Yeah, I got a question. >> Good. Thank you. Um, only for it to close again. And so I guess my my my uh comment is around DC, this agency being able to really help people without the many barriers. And I didn't quite get the confidence from her answering that. I wanted to ask you, Council Member Fman, because you've been interacting with her more than most, uh, as relates to some of these programs. terms I know you talk about exiting rapper rehousing. Uh do you feel like her answers during the questionnaire during a hearing was satisfactory and helping us get to where we need to be as it relates to the city services for working-class and poor people? Uh I I do and and I'd hold up a couple of examp um on RAP there was a time where she was not telling us what the plan was and but that was because the plan was in formulation and now the plan has been put out on the table and I think everybody's got clarity about it and I think The plan that they came up with is a good plan and it needed to be able to work in a more nuanced way. But also, >> Chairman, I need to reclaim my time real quick. Um, I didn't get quite a good response. Uh, I do notice that I asked my staff, did we get a response? We sent an email on Monday the 11th about 522 Oak 528 Oak Street. We haven't gotten a response. So, >> is this on if this is on RAP? There was an email from Laura Canard. It's about it's probably 10 days old now where she forward Lilia Canard who's a government affairs person at DHS where she forwarded the plan for how RAP is going to operate and so maybe you didn't get a specific response but maybe they perceived that that broader response that came to everybody on the council responded to your question. Thank you, council member. If there no further questions, madame general counsel, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, yes. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, is the uh who knows who the secretary is. Is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> And madame budget director, uh this is an appointment resolution, so there wouldn't be a fiscal impact statement. >> Correct. Uh without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting. Um if there's no objection, the next four measures, which are revenue bond approval resolutions, will be presented in block. Uh that's PR26-283, Field School, Inc. Revenue Bonds project approval resolution of 2025. PR26-344 Children's Hospital Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2025, PR26-345, Early Childhood Academy Public Charter School Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2025, and PR26-355, Richard Wright Public Charter School Revenue Bonds Project Approval Resolution of 2025. All reported out of the Committee on Business and Economic Development, chaired by Council Member Kenya McDuffy. Mr. McDuffy. >> Thank you, Chairman. Proposed resolution 26-293, the Field School, Inc. Revenue Bonds Project approval resolution of 2025 was introduced on September 16th, 2025 by chairman Mendlesson at the request of the mayor referred to the committee on business and economic development on September 17th, 2025. The committee held a public roundt on the proposed resolution on October 29th, 2025 and a markup on November 12th of this year. Uh the measure authorizes the issuance, sale, and delivery of up to $25 million in District of Columbia revenue bonds to the Field School, Inc. The bonds will assist with financing, refinancing, or reimbursing the Field School, Inc. for all or a portion of their cost incurred in connection with the construction and renovation of facilities at the field school's Foxh Hall Road campus, including a new 15,000 foot innovation center, updates to the existing Wonder Building, construction of and improvements to athletic fields and parking facilities, and payment of eligible issuance costs. Uh the next measure proposed resolution 26-344 the children's hospital revenue bonds project approval resolution of 2025 was introduced by the chairman on October 10th 2025 at the request of the mayor and referred to the committee on business and economic development on October 21st 2025. The committee held a public roundt on the proposed resolution on October 29th 2025 and a markup on November 12th of this year. The proposed resolution authorizes the issuance, sale, and delivery of up to $550 million in taxexempt District of Columbia revenue bonds to Children's Hospital. The revenue bond proceeds will be used to refund prior bond issuances and to finance building renovations at the National uh the Children's National Hospital Shik Shik Sed campus, pardon me. Renovations to the emergency room and construction of a new special maternity delivery unit. The revenue bonds will also allow the children's hospital to acquire and implement a modern electronic medical record and billing system and fund certain working capital post and issuance expenses. The next measure, proposed resolution 26-345, the early childhood academy public charter school revenue bonds project approval resolution of 2025 was introduced by chairman Mendelson on October 10th, 2025 at the request of the mayor and referred to the committee on business and economic development on October 21st, 2025. The committee held a public roundt on the proposed resolution on October 29th, 2025 and a markup on November 12th. The proposed resolution authorizes the issuance, sale, and delivery of up to $15 million in District of Columbia revenue bonds to assist early childhood academy public charter school, Inc. The revenue bond proceeds will refinance costs associated with the acquisition, renovation, and improvement. Another minute, chairman, >> without objection. >> An improvement of the school's educational facility. Additionally, the revenue bonds will enable the school to unwind its new markets tax credit structure, which expired in September of 2025 and replace it with lowerc cost long-term debt through the district's industrial revenue bond program. Uh the final uh measure I'm going to be moving in block is proposed resolution 26-355, the Richard Wright public charter school revenue bonds project approval resolution of 2025 which was introduced by the chairman on October 17th at the request of the mayor and referred to the committee on business and economic development on October 21st of this year. The committee held a public round table on the resolution on October 29th and a markup on November 12th of this year. The proposed resolution authorizes the issuance, sale, and delivery of up to $22 million in District of Columbia revenue bonds to finance campus improvements and refinance existing indebtedness to the Richard Wright public charter school. The planned project includes the renovation and modernization of existing school building and expansion of instructional space and upgrades to specialized facilities. Improvements will include new classrooms, updated science laboratories, a dedicated media newsroom and theater, and additional collaborative learning areas designed to enhance student engagement and support the school's media focused curriculum. At the request of the executive, the committee updated the print to reflect an incorrect reference to the size of the school's facility. With that, I request that the aforementioned measures uh be placed on the consent agenda for the legislative meeting to follow. Uh, thank you, Mr. McDuffy. Are there questions from members? >> Madam general counsel, are these measures legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, they are. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary? >> Yes, they are. >> Are the is the record complete for each? >> Yes, they are. >> And madame budget director, are there fiscal impact statements for these? >> Yes, there are fiscal impact statements. And I assume there's no fiscal impact. >> Correct. >> And they conform or comply with council requirements. >> Correct. >> Without objection, these resolutions will be placed on the consent agenda for today's additional legislative meeting. Uh the last measure for consideration is bill 26-147 streetery program endorsements and protest process amendment act of 2025. Council member McDuffy. >> Thank you. Uh chairman. Bill 26-147, the Streetery Program Endorsements and Protest Process Amendment Act of 2025, was introduced by Chairman Mendlesson at the request of the mayor on February 27th, 2025 and referred to the Committee on Business and Economic Development with comments from the Committee on Transportation and the Environment on March 4th, 2025. The committee held a public hearing on April 30th, 2025 and held a markup on November 12th of this year. The measure would permanently codify existing emergency legislation that allows street endorsements through December 31st, 2025. As of January 1st, 2025, the bill would prohibit establishments from selling, serving, or permitting patrons to consume beer, wine, or spirits on the extruder unless the establishment obtains the appropriate endorsement of license from the alcoholic beverage and cannabis board. The bill would authorize APA to issue a shootery license to a Washington convention and sports authority food and beverage business and expand existing carry out and delivery license requirements to retailers with commercial street frontage at a location under the jurisdiction of the Washington Convention and Sports Authority. would also expressly require shery summer garden and sidewalk cafe endorsements and shrutery license applications to undergo a 45day public comment period and be subject to the protest process. Most of the changes that the committee on business and economic development made to the print are clarifying in nature and intended to streamline the introduced bill. These changes are described in detail in the committee report. Finally, the committee has heard a lot over the years about the district's truery program. Most of the feedback has been critical of the permitting process, public space components and guidelines managed by the department, the DC department of transportation. The committee on transportation and environment recently held a public oversight roundt on the district's shrutery program. ANC commissioners, businesses, representatives from business improvement districts, the hospitality and nightlife industries and public witnesses alike testified that DOA's proposed rule making for the permanent street program is burdensome, confusing, includes new fees that are far too expensive. And I want to be clear, as I stated in the um markup for the measure, I'm not in support of overly bureaucratic processes that make it more difficult for restaurants to stay in business and shreries have become an essential part of the restaurant's business plans. Uh I'm committed to working with council member Allen, as we discussed at the markup, to alleviate some of these regulatory burdens to create a more efficient and attractive shooter program. With that, I request that this measure be placed on the agenda for the council's December 2nd legislative meeting. The Senate gentlemen. >> Uh, thank you, Council Member McDuffy. Are there questions from members? >> Mr. Chair, >> council member Allen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, last week the committee on transportation, the environment held a hearing on streeties focused on the DOT portion uh of this aspect. We heard from businesses, from ANC commissioners, from neighbors who all had serious concerns with what was being proposed and that those proposed rules would cost jobs, would cost city tax revenue, uh would hurt our local businesses and reduce the vibrancy of our corridors where those streeteries are done well. We obviously want regulations. We want them that are going to balance with our local business communities, but also with what streeteries can't provide. Last week, I was informed the executive does not intend to make any changes in response to the concerns raised by our restaurants, our local businesses, and by our ANC commissioners. So, I'm going to be working to put together emergency legislation to make many of those corrections so that this can work well. Um, what I want to clarify both for the public and for our local witnesses or sorry, for our local businesses is that today's action, Mr. Mr. McDuffy, just to be clear for everyone, this is focused on the ABKA element of our streeteries, which I think we all support and recognize that aspect of this, but it is separate from the changes we're going to have to make through emergency legislation related to the DOT rules. Correct. >> Uh that is uh accurate. This focuses on only the alcoholic beverage and cannabis administration's uh endorsement process as it relates to shy program. >> Excellent. I appreciate it. I look forward to partnering with you on the legislation that I'll be moving hopefully relatively soon. Thank you, >> boss. Thank you. >> So, Council Allen, you're identifying some concerns you have that don't affect this bill, but that you may simultaneously with our at the same meeting that we consider this bill, you may be bringing up as an emergency. >> The streetery the issue around streeteries and new rules and regulations have two core components. One is related to ABKA licensing and that's what this legislation does. The second is related to DOT rules that are being put in place that is separate from this bill because streeteries kind of gets lumped into one conversation. I want to make sure it's clear that the legislation today I support because it is related to necessary and needed ABKA element of making sure streeteries have their appropriate license. But I want to flag for my colleagues that we are going to need to make changes that will align with what we're hearing from our local businesses, from our restaurants, from our NC commissioners. Um because the executive has told me last week they're not going to make any changes to their proposal. So we need to make some tweaks to it to make it work. >> And you're thinking of doing that on December 2nd. >> That is likely the time frame. Yes. >> Council, that will be our next legislative meeting. >> Yes. Council member, >> you got plans for another one? Let me know. >> We could do one on th next Thursday. Um council member Tran White, you had some questions. >> Uh I do. It's not uh particularly related to this bill, but the overall uh street program. Um I guess it was in my view this program was designed during co um to create an alternative to people coming in indoor spaces and I guess it's still here and we're still working with it. One of the things I am concerned about is the uh aspect of people losing jobs. Uh Council Member Allen, you spoke to that. I know this is Council McDuffy's portion of the bill, but I know you've been involved. What are we hearing as it relates to people losing jobs? if that if you can give clarity on that. >> Yeah, and I'm happy to chat with it. I I suspect uh I'm happy to answer your question uh as the chair of the committee on business and economic development and and it's the reason why I spoke to the aspect of the street program that is not covered by my committee. Uh but nonetheless, I've received concerns from uh businesses, uh owners, operators, uh bid, uh leadership, as well as the restaurant industry, uh because of the likelihood that the increased costs associated with DOT's rules, um some of the requirements around the materials that they can or cannot use uh to have shreries, whether it is plexiglass or some other material that is uh more durable, has come up as an issue. Uh and in terms of the loss of jobs, it's the idea that if these honorous proposed regulations uh remain without any changes as was suggested by uh uh me and council member Allen to the DOT portion of the strutery program, uh a number of theories could uh uh be shut down and therefore the associated jobs that are included uh with those job uh with those uh businesses could also go away. So, that's that's the concern that I've heard uh from folks uh who've reached out to our committee and in the testimony that I observed at Council Member Allen's uh hearing a couple weeks ago. >> And I'll just add briefly, we heard from businesses, for example, at the hearing last week that said they would be having to lay off 40% of their workforce uh if these rules take effect. And so, they translated that into real jobs for real people. Um and that could be very damaging. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Council Member. >> Mr. Chairman, >> do you have a question? >> Um, I guess this is a question for both Council Member Allen and um, Council Member McDuffy in terms of how you all are working together to ensure that the two parts uh, align or make sense. So, for instance, um, Council Member McDuffy, in the bill that we have before us today, um, it would allow for businesses to register for a three-year street reimbursement. I don't know if that aligns with what DOT would be providing, which is a three-year opportunity for someone to have a streetery without needing to go through a renewal process. You could see that that could somehow create like if DOT's process was you have to come back every year, but ABK is giving you a three-year endorsement. >> Yeah. That that language is no longer actually in the bill. And to the point that you're making, we want to make as much alignment as possible. uh with the processes that are already in the current business cycle for businesses when they might have to renew uh their liquor license. Uh but then we're also I think communicating with uh Council Member Allen and following closely what DAT has proposed uh to make sure to extent necessary there be consistency with what APK is doing um with anything that might be done by DOT. And so the concerns we've heard have generally not been with APA's uh shooter endorsements process. Uh they've been with the regulations that have been proposed by uh DOT. >> Thank you. >> And and just to be clear, AB also consulted DOT on the changes that we're proposing in this measure today. >> Council member Bonds for questions. >> Yes. Um just just curious as we are discussing streeteries and that's what we're really doing this morning. Wondered if um um just how far the business community has gone in thinking about how they get customers into their establishments. Um maybe billboards on the sidewalk. Um one or two music coming from the establishment. Um, and my concern is the streeteries that are on narrow roadways, um, that are very problematic where one lane has to wait for the other one to get through. And I'm thinking about one location in particular right off of I think it's 11th Street at the corner of 11th and 0 or something like that. and it's really hard to to get through. And I just wondered when we were talking about streeteries and the value that they have um we also could think about how we put value on the uh opportunity. Remember we had um the the trucks that would food trucks and we created a zone and all of that. We we thought about how we were doing a program holistically and just wondered if in the conversations about streeteries if we're thinking a little more holistically about their value to the community and how and how we can maybe do it better. No, I think that's a great question and I think it is certainly something that uh ABS has been thinking about and I know has come up in conversations that I've had with advisory neighborhood commissioners and other civic leadership uh as well as just ordinary residents. Um and I think it's important to note that not every streetery has been um um a success in other words and so uh I think it's why I mentioned uh and I think it's is relevant to your question that what we're doing in terms of the APCA process and the in in in the endorsements would expressly require shrutery summer garden and sidewalk cafe endorsements and shery licensed applicants to go undergo that 45day day comment period uh and the protest process so that uh residents uh who are impacted ANC commissioners who offer great weight and others uh have a process in which they can lodge concerns, objections um or support for streets. >> Thank you. Thank you council member. Uh, I have three questions. Madame Federal Council, is the measure legally and technically sufficient for our consideration? >> Yes, it is. >> Madam Secretary, is the record complete? >> Yes, it is. >> Mr. Assistant Secretary, uh, Madam Budget Director, does the measure's fiscal impact statement comply with council requirements? >> Yes, it does. >> Is there a fiscal impact? >> There is not. >> Uh, without objection, this measure will be placed on the consent agenda for the December 2nd regular legislative meeting. Uh that's going to conclude the business of this committee the whole I do want to before we adjourn acknowledge that we're being visited by five college interns from the Holland Knights public policy and regulation intern program. Two from Georgetown University, two from George Washington University, one from Howard University. All except for one are seniors. I won't ask which one is not a senior. Uh and are interested in public policy work which is great. So thank you. Uh after I journ we will be if you want to give them applause. Yes. >> We do like public policy interns. Um we are after I journ we will be about five minutes and then we will start the legislative meeting which could be very brief. Uh so the time >> Mr. Chairman >> Mr. Parker, >> I I um had a question about the Philip Reed Memorial Park designation act of 2025. I know that the fiscal statement was not ready. Um but is it the expectation that it will be ready by next meeting? I'm asking because I have uh many anxious neighbors in Woodidge who are eagerly awaiting the passage of this bill. Uh and it has been delayed for several weeks. So, I just wanted a clarification on the record. >> Uh, it's my hope that we'll have it ready in two weeks. The uh we just don't have the fiscal impact statement. It's that simple. >> Okay. >> As in there's not another issue that I'm aware of with regard to the legislation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> As we know, we like to follow our rules and so we have at least when we want to, we follow the rules. So, um we have to wait until we have the fiscal impact statement. Uh the time is 12:16 and this meeting's adjourned. I am calling to order this meeting. This is an additional meeting of the council of the District of Columbia. Today is Tuesday, November 18th, 2025. The time is 12:25 in the afternoon. We are in room 500, the C uh the council chambers of the Johnny Wilson building. This meeting is an additional meeting, not a regularly scheduled meeting. And it is also, I believe, the 19th, if this is correct, the 19th legislative meeting of council period 26. Um, this meeting is being broadcast on council cable channel 13 as well as on the council's website, www.dcconsil.gov. Um, we always begin our legislative meetings with a moment of silence. I would ask that all the members on the deis as well as everyone in the chamber observe a moment of silence for reflection. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? >> Council member Allen >> here. >> Council member Bonds >> here. Council member Fowler >> present. >> Council member Fman >> present. >> Council member Henderson >> here. Council member Lewis George >> here. Council member McDuffy >> here. >> Chairman Mendelson >> present. >> Council member Nadau. >> Council member Parker >> here. >> Council member Pinto >> present. Council member Robert White >> present. Council member Trayon White >> present. Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Uh, we have the consent agenda and only the consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda? Hearing none. Uh, the vote will be on the consent agenda. All those in favor say I. >> Are there any opposed? I hear none. The consent agenda is approved unanimously. For anyone who's watching the consent agenda, it was pretty much everything all the resolutions we considered at the committee the whole plus one ceremonial. That's going to conclude our business. The next legislative meeting will be December 2nd, 2025 scheduled to start at 12:00 noon. The time is 12:27 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.